Re:YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread electio...
by codys on Friday December 11, 2020 @01:15PM
(#25388775)
No, it isn't. It states the issue at hand and gives the facts available to us.
The item you've linked (the filing by the Texas AG against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin) is weird.
It seems to think there's some serious difference between mail-in and absentee voting in GA. In GA, the term absentee voting encompasses both early voting and mail in voting. The only absentee voting that has signature verification is the mail-in component (IDs are checked instead for early voting).
And it appears to make the same "error" you've continued to make: it conflates rejection for signature mismatch and rejection for all reasons, when the signature mismatch rejections are a subset of all reasons.
In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN
Page 5 aND 6.
"Georgia argues that the “[r]ejection rates for signatures on absentee ballots remained largely unchanged” as between the 2018 and 2020 elections, referring the Court to Wood v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20- cv-04651-SDG, 2020 WL 6817513, at *10 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2020) (“Wood”). Georgia Br. 4. Georgia’s reliance on Wood is misplaced because the analysis therein related to rejection rates for absentee ballots—as opposed to the mail-in ballots analyzed by Dr. Cicchetti"
"Indeed, in 2018, the rejection rate for mail-in ballots was actually 3.32% or more than twenty times higher than the rejection rate for the absentee ballots that Georgia incorrectly compares to dispute"
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163493/2020...